After the Senate confirmation hearings, I would say that Eric Holder goes right at the top of my list of Obama appointments. This has nothing to do with his résumé or experience, but simply the clarity and honesty with which he faced his questioners during the confirmation. Compare this performance to Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey. This type of directness and reasonableness is exactly what I expect from Barack Obama and his Cabinet; indeed, it is the principal reason I voted for him.
In response to what was really a rather pathetic line of questioning from Senator Orrin Hatch -- Some people have accused Cheney et al. of committing war crimes, but you wouldn't prosecute them, would you? -- Holder stated simply, "No one is above the law... We will follow the evidence... and let that take us where it should." Remarkably absent from Holder's entire hearing was the double-
speak and selective amnesia we have come to expect from the Justice Department.
Coming in at the bottom of my list, somewhat artificially in order to respond to this writing prompt, is the Nobel Laureate and now-Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
I must admit I am proud to see appointed someone who is a professor PhD recipient from the department that awarded me my first degree. Unfortunately, though, his background and research are totally irrelevant to energy issues. I am sure that Dr. Chu is smart enough to master the field of energy research, as well as the political issues related to energy policy, but it seems odd that Obama has chosen someone with literally no background in energy or government. His physics background will bias him towards physical solutions (e.g. nuclear) and away from chemical (e.g. ethanol) or biological (e.g. engineered cells) solutions. There were probably other, more qualified applicants, eager to solve the most important issue of our generation.
-- Jacob Levine
There are a couple things that stand out in my mind when I think back on Dubya's time as our President. (Sidenote: Remember when we called him Dubya? Before he was too sinister for that endearing nickname...)
The thing I remember most vividly is the utterly poor and disappointing performance of our news media in the wake of 9/11. It was just rampant fear and idiocy, and blind conformity (see below). As I recall, it was not until 2004, not until right after the "Atrocious Reelection" (as it should be memorialized), that the New York Times broke its first article criticizing the Bush Administration. (Worse yet, they waited until after the election to publish it).
It was during this 'moment', between September 2001 and late 2004, that comedy and satire reached what will probably be the apex of their influence and pungent hilarity in the US. It was the only mainstream outlet for dissent, for people who were deeply disturbed by the events of the world and even more disturbed by the response of the American mainstream.
Below is a 'video' clip of an audio clip from David Cross's 2002 album Shut Up You Fucking Baby. Besides being an amusing tour down memory lane (I had, for a moment, forgotten the ferocious patriotism that followed 9/11), I think what's striking is how normal much of what he says has become. This was cutting edge in 2002, and his prescience is proved by hindsight. "You cannot win a war on terrorism...at no point in time ever are we gonna go 'whew! got 'em all, everybody loves us again'...all we're doing is making more terrorists." This has only recently become conventional wisdom among the mainstream left opposition.
Also worth noting, as usual, is Jon Stewart, who in this first clip of 2003 -- the year we invaded Iraq -- declares 2003 the "Year of False Pretenses".
-- Jacob Levine
RSS Feed